Re: Psychological Motives for Pursuing Photography

[Herschel Mair <herschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Facts are only facts from a given perspective. Only the very simplest facts stand up to inspection..
"The sky is blue"... well actually not... more correctly put "The sky appears blue"

And truth must be defined: Biblical truth? physical truth? Political truth? what properties must a fact have to be "TRUE"? 

Simply to have been observed is hardly enough. How many optical illusions are absolutely convincing? How fickle is the mind? Surely observation involves the observer's life, experience, emotions?

So what properties constitute "Truth"? and can a camera reproduce these faithfully? Is there any integrity to truth? Must it be "The whole truth" or can it be partially true? Must it contain all the facts or can it relate only some selected facts? Surely if you can pick and choose only the facts which suit you, then you have a manipulation. Perhaps even a lie?

Isn't it true that any photograph leaves out far more than it includes? The frame line, by virtue of its selectivity and exclusion makes any photograph a lie or at least a manipulation of the facts. And what about time? Obviously the truth at Gettysburg this morning is not as it was 1863. We select the time at which we shoot.

And what about viewpoint? what might seem true from one viewpoint may be totally different by moving a few inches. Escher showed that.

We are like the inhabitants of Plato's cave. Looking at shadows and making our truths out of them

We all believed in Newtonian gravity. Quite observable and quite "provable"... "What goes up must come down"   A "Self-evident truth"  but not really... even the idea of "Up" isn't true.
Einstein radically changed the way we think about gravity and made Newton all but obsolete. And as we speak Einstein's theories are being challenged.

I could aske you: "Is there a hippopotamus in your bedroom?" and you might reply "NO" but how do you know?... Because you can't see one?
There is probably oxygen in your bedroom? But can you see it either.

The famous mathematician, Bertrand Russell said that you'd have a terrible time writing a proof for "There is no hippo in this room"

Truth is a comfortable concept. It's comforting to think we have a firm handle on life and the universe... but alas it's all too flimsy.



On 8/31/11 8:54 AM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I totally disagree.  You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your facts.  Truth is fact.  Truth is absolute.  There is no gray in truth.  You may not like it, and you may wish it were different, but its there none the less.

Now if you are creating art and the composition is perfect except for a tree you do not like in the frame, if you change the composition to leave it out is that the truth?  Yes for that spot on the earth exists at that moment in time.  If you take the image from the original point and clone it out is that the truth?  No but for a print I am representing as art and not documentary, I would have no problem doing that at all.  A model shows up with a big tattoo on her shoulder that disrupts the lines of her dress flowing.  There is a big difference in cloning out the tat from a gallery print and cloning out the tat for an ID photo.

I don't believe it is that hard to show truth, but showing emotions is a really tough assignment.   Creating an emotional response to your work in the viewer that is the response you intended is the ultimate measure of success of an image.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Psychological Motives for Pursuing Photography
From: Herschel Mair <herschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 30, 2011 11:33 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I wanted to study music and my family wanted me to be an architect... I
studied photography. The faculty was in the printing and lithography
department. It was "The British way" - Professionalism and know-how
above all else. The old debate about "Art" hardly entered the equation.

I'm not dealing with truth at all. It's such a vague abstract.... your
truth my truth our truth... and changeable. I don't believe photographs
are capable of translating what we feel or what we see truthfully. They
will almost always trigger a different and personal experience for every
viewer. The viewer feels and sees from his own life and experience.

"We see things not as they are but as we are." Einstein

I am motivated by two dynamics. I take pictures to sell stuff and I
take pictures to please myself.

The former is done to other people's specifications mostly. I shoot to
please an art director or a client etc...

The latter is done to satisfy an urge to play with light and perhaps to
collect... To find images that fit into my projects so that they tell a
better story and are visually more pleasing.

I almost never shoot stuff that I don't "Need" for a project. What would
I do with a pretty sunset? I love them as much as the next man and
sometimes the light is so beautiful it turns me inside out. But I am not
tempted to reach for a camera. I don't take gear with me when I go on
vacation.
For over 25 years now, photography has been work. Work that I love to
do, but work nevertheless.

Herschel

On 8/30/11 9:58 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
> Amen.
>
> On 8/31/11 12:18 AM, Lea Murphy wrote:
>> I'm not trying to reveal Truth, I'm trying to show what I saw, what I
>> felt, what I felt about what I saw.
>
>